[quote]roybot wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
30 days and nights.
It was 30 days OF Night…referring to the fact that this far north there entire months free of day light.
Phew! Fuzzy, you had me going for a minute there! But you pulled it back from the brink at the last minute. And both Josh Harnett movies, too.[/quote]
Just missed the gay bullet. Thanks to PX!
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
Davinci.v2 wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
30 days of night
I saw that movie in theaters years back when it first came out. I personally thought it didn’t live up to it’s potential (which is why it felt like it was a let down) but was a slightly better than average horror movie.
I’m not a huge horror/scary movie fan at all but I liked this one for what it was worth. Not to scary just about right for me I guess.
Anyone have suggestions on scary movies to watch? The gf gets tired of the movies I pick that aren’t scary. [/quote]
In my opinion there aren’t very many good horror/scary movies out there except some older ones which I’m sure you’ve probably seen. Some of my favorites include:
28 days later
28 weeks later (not nearly as good as the first but still worth watching)
dawn of the dead (remake)
high tension
pandorum (only newer movie I’ve seen that’s had me unnerved at parts)
stir of echoes (less of a horror than a thriller/suspense movie)
The Descent (ok once you got past the intitial introduction to story and characters)
The Ring (ok)
The Grudge (see above)
The Thing (old school michael douglas)
The Hills Have Eyes (dont bother with the sequel)
Amityville Horror (Ryan Renolds did a great job in this one)
I’m sure I missed some, but those were what came to mind in no particular order off the top of my head…
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
Anyone have suggestions on scary movies to watch? The gf gets tired of the movies I pick that aren’t scary.
In my opinion there aren’t very many good horror/scary movies out there except some older ones which I’m sure you’ve probably seen. Some of my favorites include:
28 days later
28 weeks later (not nearly as good as the first but still worth watching)
dawn of the dead (remake)
high tension
pandorum (only newer movie I’ve seen that’s had me unnerved at parts)
stir of echoes (less of a horror than a thriller/suspense movie)
The Descent (ok once you got past the intitial introduction to story and characters)
The Ring (ok)
The Grudge (see above)
The Thing (old school michael douglas)
The Hills Have Eyes (dont bother with the sequel)
Amityville Horror (Ryan Renolds did a great job in this one)
I’m sure I missed some, but those were what came to mind in no particular order off the top of my head…[/quote]
I’ve seen 7/12 of them but the very very sad part of it is that the gf HATES zombie movies and I love them! Every guy wishes he was in a zombie apocalypses just to have the reason to shoot zombieishpoeple. These movies fill that gap lol.
Mine does too. The good news is that in 28 days later and 28 weeks later they technically aren’t zombies, they’re infected. GG GF.
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Mine does too. The good news is that in 28 days later and 28 weeks later they technically aren’t zombies, they’re infected. GG GF.[/quote]
Valid point!
For the record, The Thing is quite possibly one of the most ahead of its time movies in that genre. I hate they are thinking of remaking it because I am not sure they can really match the acting and feel of the first one. Short of using better special effects, how could they improve on it?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
30 days and nights.
Watched this last night. No story to why vampires came to a village. Was it just to feed? Was not a slow movie started out pretty quick and stayed up to pace. Some things were gory and not to overly scary. Some things I didn’t get: Where did the 6-8 year old little girl come from? How did she turn into a vampire without being attacked? I’m sure she would have been killed? Where did the vampires take all the bodies? Especially the guy in the jail and the grandma?
So many questions that were not answered…
It was 30 days OF Night…referring to the fact that this far north there entire months free of day light.
I thought it was pretty obvious they came to the village just to feed and also that they chose that place because it would be isolated during that time period. That girl must have been with them to start with or maybe she was just bitten. I didn’t consider that to be very important. Kids can be vampires too.
It was also based on a graphic novel and I think they did a decent job of it.[/quote]
Been a while since I saw the movie…but I’m pretty sure they do a good job of making it obvious that those vampires planned specifically on going there to feed on everyone because they knew it would be 30 days of no sunlight and totally isolated. Pretty sure they even have some vampire dialogue in there about wanting to find everyone and finish them off before its over so that no one will ever know what really happened.
Its a pretty good vampire movie over all IMO.
[quote]josh86 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
30 days and nights.
Watched this last night. No story to why vampires came to a village. Was it just to feed? Was not a slow movie started out pretty quick and stayed up to pace. Some things were gory and not to overly scary. Some things I didn’t get: Where did the 6-8 year old little girl come from? How did she turn into a vampire without being attacked? I’m sure she would have been killed? Where did the vampires take all the bodies? Especially the guy in the jail and the grandma?
So many questions that were not answered…
It was 30 days OF Night…referring to the fact that this far north there entire months free of day light.
I thought it was pretty obvious they came to the village just to feed and also that they chose that place because it would be isolated during that time period. That girl must have been with them to start with or maybe she was just bitten. I didn’t consider that to be very important. Kids can be vampires too.
It was also based on a graphic novel and I think they did a decent job of it.
Been a while since I saw the movie…but I’m pretty sure they do a good job of making it obvious that those vampires planned specifically on going there to feed on everyone because they knew it would be 30 days of no sunlight and totally isolated. Pretty sure they even have some vampire dialogue in there about wanting to find everyone and finish them off before its over so that no one will ever know what really happened.
Its a pretty good vampire movie over all IMO.[/quote]
Agreed. They made a point of implying that they had done this before and wiped out stranded civilizations leaving nothing behind so no one would even know they existed.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Davinci.v2 wrote:
Defiance is definately worth watching. I also saw Pandorum a few weekends ago and thought it was actually quite good in the scheme of sci-fi/suspense.
Ah, was contemplating whether I should watch it or not (Pandorum). Guess I’ll give it a go…
[/quote]
x2!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
For the record, The Thing is quite possibly one of the most ahead of its time movies in that genre. I hate they are thinking of remaking it because I am not sure they can really match the acting and feel of the first one. Short of using better special effects, how could they improve on it?[/quote]
Aside from advancements in special effects, the level of tone, acting and story would be impossible to replicate (pun intended). But seeing as how The Thing was itself a remake (The Thing from Another World), I’d like to see them take another b-movie and reinvent it for a modern, mature audience…
I recommend Splinter to fans of The Thing. It’s about a parasitic mold that infects its victims and consumes them. Over the course of the movie, it ‘evolves’ by taking its victims, and twisting them into increasingly monstrous forms.
It’s pretty low-budget, with most of the action taking place in a gas station, and has no star power (the most famous actor is the guy that played Joey Tribbiani’s brother). In a nutshell, it’s The Thing without the paranoia, but that’s far from a criticism: it’s still a cut above a lot of horror produced in the last couple of years.
If it wasn’t a trailer on one of my previous rentals, I’d never have known about it. Just another decent movie that flew under the radar.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Professor X wrote:
For the record, The Thing is quite possibly one of the most ahead of its time movies in that genre. I hate they are thinking of remaking it because I am not sure they can really match the acting and feel of the first one. Short of using better special effects, how could they improve on it?
Aside from advancements in special effects, the level of tone, acting and story would be impossible to replicate (pun intended). But seeing as how The Thing was itself a remake (The Thing from Another World), I’d like to see them take another b-movie and reinvent it for a modern, mature audience…
I recommend Splinter to fans of The Thing. It’s about a parasitic mold that infects its victims and consumes them. Over the course of the movie, it ‘evolves’ by taking its victims, and twisting them into increasingly monstrous forms.
It’s pretty low-budget, with most of the action taking place in a gas station, and has no star power (the most famous actor is the guy that played Joey Tribbiani’s brother). In a nutshell, it’s The Thing without the paranoia, but that’s far from a criticism: it’s still a cut above a lot of horror produced in the last couple of years.
If it wasn’t a trailer on one of my previous rentals, I’d never have known about it. Just another decent movies that flew under the radar.
[/quote]
Funny, I was planning on renting Splinter this weekend. It also has Jill Wagner, who you may remember from the short-lived Blade TV show.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Fuzzyapple wrote:
30 days and nights.
Watched this last night. No story to why vampires came to a village. Was it just to feed? Was not a slow movie started out pretty quick and stayed up to pace. Some things were gory and not to overly scary. Some things I didn’t get: Where did the 6-8 year old little girl come from? How did she turn into a vampire without being attacked? I’m sure she would have been killed? Where did the vampires take all the bodies? Especially the guy in the jail and the grandma?
So many questions that were not answered…
It was 30 days OF Night…referring to the fact that this far north there entire months free of day light.
I thought it was pretty obvious they came to the village just to feed and also that they chose that place because it would be isolated during that time period. That girl must have been with them to start with or maybe she was just bitten. I didn’t consider that to be very important. Kids can be vampires too.
It was also based on a graphic novel and I think they did a decent job of it.[/quote]
I liked it too - a slightly more original take on vampire movies, in my opinion.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Funny, I was planning on renting Splinter this weekend. It also has Jill Wagner, who you may remember from the short-lived Blade TV show.[/quote]
I’ve avoided Blade: The Series ever since I read that Michael Jai White auditioned for the role, but they still decided to hire Sticky Fingaz…
Jill Wagner is quite the hotty and turns in a decent performance, which is always good.
Splinter is definitely worth a look. It scores extra points for a nod to Evil Dead 2 and the decision to go with physical effects over CGI.
The Descent- never seen it before. Glad someone mentioned it. great horror flick, like mentioned once it gets going, very well done.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
GI Joe equals worse than Transformers 2.[/quote]
no way. GI Joe was really good, Transformers 2, really bad.
I watched GI Joe a 2nd time this week, still liked it. I’ll probably never watch Transformers 2 again aside from Megan Fox
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GI Joe equals worse than Transformers 2.
no way. GI Joe was really good, Transformers 2, really bad.
I watched GI Joe a 2nd time this week, still liked it. I’ll probably never watch Transformers 2 again aside from Megan Fox[/quote]
They were both really bad, full of plot holes and nonsense. If I had to pick the better of the two, I’d still go with Transformers because it had better effects, giant transforming robots and didn’t have Channing Tatum in it.
Transformers was in amazing movie with terrible acting, GI Joe was a terrible movie with terrible acting!
Taken - This movie is probably my top favourite. There is so much ass kicking, gun shooting, and neck snapping that this movie should not be missed. The story is good and the action is plenty. Don’t get between a father’s daughter…
Gran Torino: Different to what I was expecting but a really good watch.
Hancock: Not a huge Will Smith fan, but this gave me a few mad laughs!
Feast - low budget horror/ comedy with a simple premise: a group of strangers are thrown together when they are forced to take shelter in a bar from a pack of bloodthirsty creatures. Owes a debt to Evil Dead 2 and From Dusk Till Dawn. Worth watching if that’s your thing, but be warned - it’s inferior to both.
Felon- excellent prison drama focusing on Wade Porter (Stephen Dorff), a regular guy who gets locked up for killing an intruder outside his home. Alone, and struggling to cope with the politics of prison life, he seeks help from his cell-mate and prison celebrity John Smith (Val Kilmer).
Together, they forge an unlikely friendship, but the corrupt wardens pose an even bigger threat than the prisoners.
Dorff is good in the lead role, but this is Kilmer’s movie - it’s one of his best-ever performances. He should’ve received an Oscar nomination at least. Can’t recommend this enough.